Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

what is REALLY sad is that this thread, coming from THIS community, seems to be tearing us apart. i know this is an emotional issue, but c'mon boys and girls.let's not be so offensive AND so defensive.

There's a degree of awareness about how all of these conversations play out, how everybody plays their appointed role. We all know how the "national conversation" on guns will happen, with liberals saying there are too many guns, and conservatives yelling that we're politicizing it and also, too, arm the kindergarten teachers and the problems will be solved.

And then nothing will happen, and sadly we'll do it all again

I agree with the beginning of your post, but am hopeful the last sentence won't be true.

While this is some of what aired today ...Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of the country's last assault weapons ban—which was signed into law in 1994 but expired in 2004—kicked off the Meet the Press roundtable Sunday with big news. "I'm going to introduce in the Senate, and the same bill will be introduced in the House: a bill to ban assault weapons," she said. "It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession—not retroactively, but prospectively" of assault weapons, she said. While Feinstein made clear that the bill exempts "over 900 specific weapons," her proposed bill will also ban the sale, transfer, importation and possession of clips of more than 10 bullets. "The purpose of this bill," she said, "is to get … weapons of war off the streets of our cities."

...what was disheartening was that it would not go retroactively. So the mom who currently owns an assault weapon won't have to turn it in and her son can do exactly what Adam Lanza did. Some action in this area is better than none, but going retro would be a great step forward and clean up many more assault weapons.

How many of those guns are bought and then travel up I-95 to kill people in the Northeast where there are stricter gun laws? A lot. Mayor Bloomberg & Nutter complain all of the time about Virginia's looseygoosey gun sale laws.

I'll trust a study by an Ivy League peer reviewed study before the Richmond Times-Dispatch any day of the week (or quasi-analysis from some random person on the internet).

I didn't say that I agreed with the Times-Dispatch -- I was merely pointing out that studies and stats are easily manipulated. Even by Ivy Leaguers ( you sound a bit like "someone else" throwing around that term). Of course, I did note you ignored my point about the power of a gun to stop a potential assault. Again -- I am for better gun control, but I don't see the point of bashing people who legally own guns for their own safety (perceived or otherwise).

I think in this discussion we have to ignore the crazy talk from both ends of the spectrum and focus on what realistically could be done to prevent such tragedies happening again in the future. First off, I am a gun owner myself and my Second Amendment right is important to me. I have never and never will hunt, I only own handguns. I just have some for self protection and for shooting at the gun range on occasion. Most gun owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens. I am responsible, I use them for target practice as well as for self protection, should that need ever arise. If someone ever breaks into my apartment, and it's them or me, I'm damn sure not going to go hide in a corner in my own home! I'll protect myself. I do sleep better knowing I have that protection. That being said, I do think there's steps that can be taken to help prevent these mass shootings. #1.) More intensive background checks, perhaps with psychological screenings attached. #2.) More stringent restrictions on these horribly vicious and violent videogames that kids are obsessed with nowadays. Many of these kids with underlying mental problems have trouble separating reality from fiction. #3.) More proactive teachers & counselors. People need to stop being so damn politically correct and not be afraid to step in and talk to a kid if they seem distant or withdrawn. People have gotten way too scared about hurting someone's feelings. Authority figures need to step in and talk to kids more. #4.) More proactive parenting! It all starts at home folks. Kids need proactive, involved parents who talk to their kids regularly and not just go through the motions.

Now as far as gun control goes, I think we can consider the possibility of renewing the assault weapons ban, but again, this is inherently a people problem not a gun one. The Second Amendment Right is a cherished one, and the vast majority of law abiding gun owners like me should not be punished for some mental case's actions. We can and should limit access to firearms to those with mental health problems or criminal backgrounds, but of course many of these shooters have had no major problems before they committed mass murder. The solution again is more involved parents, school counselors, and mandating mental health screenings in schools in addition to physicals! It might seem old fashioned, but if parents are uncomfortable knowing what their kid is going through, and too scared to talk to them regularly, then they shouldn't be a parent in the first place. When I was growing up my parents constantly asked me how I was doing and how school went, how my extra-curricular activities went, etc..This boosted my self esteem greatly. So to sum up my opinion is we should have much stricter mental health screenings, proactive, involved parents and schools, and where essential, more limited access to firearms but ONLY to those who have been deemed unstable or potentially at risk.

What do you all think about having some type of legislation requiring children with Neurological or psychological impairments not be allowed to live in homes with firearms?

Two things about this:

1. There's still way too much of a taboo surrounding "neuro and psych" issues. Parents often fail or refuse to recognize this. You often hear "oh, but he was so nice and normal" or "I would've never pictured him doing something this horrific" after someone goes off the deep end (or gets caught with a body in the freezer).

2. What would happen to the children in this scenario? Place them in foster care? I'd be the first to argue against it.

Maybe it would sound slightly better if phrased as: "legislation not permitting the homes with children affected by neurological/psychological impairment to own firearms." And then you'd have new caveats and slippery slopes as many of those who want to feel protected by the ownership of a fire weapon would simply not get their children diagnosed or treated. Then there's depression in otherwise "normally" functioning individuals. Also, there'd be the argument as to how constitutionally correct it would be for family X to be allowed to own a gun and not for family Y.

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

"For years, researchers have been trying to investigate whether carrying a gun is protective or risky. But getting the answer through science has proved elusive. Now, University of Pennsylvania researcher Charles Branas has tried a new tack -- employing methods normally used by epidemiologists to study cancer and other diseases.

Branas compared a group of shooting victims to a similar set of "controls" who had not been shot. His results, he said, show that guns did not, on average, protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault -- and in fact raised the risk by four times or more.

"People shouldn't feel that firearms are going to enhance their safety," Branas said. The study was published in the current issue of the prestigious American Journal of Public Health."

"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts."

No. Despite claims by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that you need a gun in your home to protect yourself and your family, public health research demonstrates that the person most likely to shoot you or a family member with a gun already has the keys to your house. Simply put: guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.[1] More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[2] You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal and not a family member? Yet at every opportunity the NRA uses the fear of crime to promote the need for ordinary citizens to keep guns in their home for self-protection. Furthermore, the NRA continues to oppose life-saving measures that require safe-storage of guns in the home."

Source:http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-66370.html

Just another "random" thought.... what kind of society are we when bearing arms is a right, but healthcare is a priviledge? Makes one wonder....

Phil, I already linked to the University of Pennsylvania study below. Of course, it was "dismissed" by the gun toting queers on the forum. It's more important that since Daddy owned a gun that they own one too.

Phil, I already linked to the University of Pennsylvania study below. Of course, it was "dismissed" by the gun toting queers on the forum. It's more important that since Daddy owned a gun that they own one too.

Oops, sorry - just noticed that...

Well, dayummm, my daddy was married to a woman ---- be right back - have to go find me a bride.... Daddy also had an 8-track player - must get one of those too...

BTW, when I was robbed at gunpoint a few years ago, the police specifically told me that it was a good thing I did not have a weapon on me, as typically, if someone robs you and you have a weapon - if you are not "quick" enough to be able to use it against the person robbing you - it will usually be used on you. There would have been no way I could have used it as the whole event occurred within a 30 second window.

I live in what would be considered a "high crime" area and have never felt the need to have a gun - as I know for a fact that it either would never be used or could be used against me.... and this is from a veteran who shot many different types of weapons in the military but was never comfortable knowing that I had the kind of responsibility that put me behind the power of a weapon that could take a life.....

It only takes one time for something horrible to happen - and the person that owns a gun suddenly says.... "why did I ever own this...." I tend to function off of a cost-benefit analysis of most things in life - and to me (my opinion only) the cost of owning a gun and potential consequences far outweigh any unlikely benefit to be achieved.

I think in this discussion we have to ignore the crazy talk from both ends of the spectrum and focus on what realistically could be done to prevent such tragedies happening again in the future. First off, I am a gun owner myself and my Second Amendment right is important to me. I have never and never will hunt, I only own handguns. I just have some for self protection and for shooting at the gun range on occasion. Most gun owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens. I am responsible, I use them for target practice as well as for self protection, should that need ever arise. If someone ever breaks into my apartment, and it's them or me, I'm damn sure not going to go hide in a corner in my own home! I'll protect myself. I do sleep better knowing I have that protection. That being said, I do think there's steps that can be taken to help prevent these mass shootings. #1.) More intensive background checks, perhaps with psychological screenings attached. #2.) More stringent restrictions on these horribly vicious and violent videogames that kids are obsessed with nowadays. Many of these kids with underlying mental problems have trouble separating reality from fiction. #3.) More proactive teachers & counselors. People need to stop being so damn politically correct and not be afraid to step in and talk to a kid if they seem distant or withdrawn. People have gotten way too scared about hurting someone's feelings. Authority figures need to step in and talk to kids more. #4.) More proactive parenting! It all starts at home folks. Kids need proactive, involved parents who talk to their kids regularly and not just go through the motions.

Now as far as gun control goes, I think we can consider the possibility of renewing the assault weapons ban, but again, this is inherently a people problem not a gun one. The Second Amendment Right is a cherished one, and the vast majority of law abiding gun owners like me should not be punished for some mental case's actions. We can and should limit access to firearms to those with mental health problems or criminal backgrounds, but of course many of these shooters have had no major problems before they committed mass murder. The solution again is more involved parents, school counselors, and mandating mental health screenings in schools in addition to physicals! It might seem old fashioned, but if parents are uncomfortable knowing what their kid is going through, and too scared to talk to them regularly, then they shouldn't be a parent in the first place. When I was growing up my parents constantly asked me how I was doing and how school went, how my extra-curricular activities went, etc..This boosted my self esteem greatly. So to sum up my opinion is we should have much stricter mental health screenings, proactive, involved parents and schools, and where essential, more limited access to firearms but ONLY to those who have been deemed unstable or potentially at risk.

How did any of you ever get the idea that a 230+? year old document says everyone in 2012 should have the right to assault weapons and war toys?

You may be responsible but there are how many crack pots a year out there slaying down dozens of people at a clip with these stupid weapons.

Time to "bite the bullet" and accept a damn compromise to your so-called "cherished" right, which huge amounts of the population certainly don't cherish. Nor will you when some whack job shoots up your neighborhood.

Geez louise.

Go ahead and keep your revolver but could we please keep these god awful gangster and war weapons out of peoples hands and homes.

Again, this is not rocket science.

Selfish selfish selfish. Is there NO understanding of how we all must adjust to the times, and make compromises for the common good and our fellow men?

Bunch of narcissistic navel-gazers, and rather feeble debaters --- so worried about their rights to own oranges that they can't understand a ban on poison fucking apples. Its all fruit, right, so "hands off". Dumb.

I say, give the assault weapons to the native americans and let -em take back everything stolen in the first place. Let the "injuns" pry the weapons out of your cold dead hands. Ha ha.

No nuance, no subtlety, just me me me me -- based on an extremely rigid insistence there's only ONE way to read the Constitution. The one that favors my individualism and absolute liberty.

« Last Edit: December 16, 2012, 07:50:51 PM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

The Carrollton, Kentucky bus collision was one of the deadliest bus disasters in United States history.

About 11:00 p.m. EDT on Saturday May 14, 1988, Larry Mahoney, a drunk driver in a pickup truck traveling in the wrong direction on an interstate highway in a rural, unincorporated area of Carroll County, Kentucky collided head-on with a gasoline-powered former school bus which was in use as a church bus. The initial crash was exacerbated when the gasoline from the ruptured fuel tank of the bus ignited immediately after impact, which also blocked the front loading door. Difficulties encountered by the victims attempting to evacuate the crowded bus quickly in the smoke and darkness through the only other designated exit, the rear emergency door, resulted in the death of 27 people and injured 34 of 67 passengers. Six passengers escaped without significant injury. Mahoney also sustained injuries.

In the aftermath of the disaster, several family members of victims became active leaders of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and one became national president of the organization (Karolyn Nunnallee). The standards for both operation and equipment for school buses and similar buses were improved in Kentucky and many other states, notably increased emergency exits, better structural integrity, and less volatile fuel.

Other safety issues remain to be addressed. Flammability of materials used in bus seating must also be factored with cost, durability and performance of the foam in impact situations. Another unresolved issue is the lack of requirements for occupant restraints such as seat belts in larger capacity school buses.

On Interstate 71, the crash site is marked with a highway sign erected by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC). Even twenty years later, memorial items such as crosses and flower arrangements are placed at the site by families and friends. The Carrollton crash remains the second worst bus crash in U.S. history tied for fatalities with the Prestonsburg bus disaster which occurred 30 years earlier in Floyd County, Kentucky in 1958. The only deadlier crash was the Yuba City bus disaster in 1976, which killed 29 people.

First, I think it is definitely important that various forms of gun control measures be explored and implemented - including some of those previously mentioned in this thread...

Now, with that said, there have also been several research studies done which have shown a significant increase in the amount of mass murders committed by persons with mental illnesses.

For those 45 years and older, do you remember a long time ago when most states and counties had large state mental health hospitals?

Well, around mid to end of the 1960s, based on what was termed a "progressive movement" states began closing these institutions (or seriously down-sizing them), as it was felt that given new medications, most persons who were mentally ill could receive "community-based treatment" outside of these hospitals.

However, the real reason states closed these institutions was because of a provision that was put into Medicaid called IMD (institutes for mental disease) - this exclusion said that the federal government would not pay its up to 50% share of costs associated for mental health care for anyone who was treated in a mental health hospital larger than 14 beds..... States did not want to lose this federal money - so, they began putting many seriously mentally ill people into the community, reduced the number of people who were placed into facilities, and limited the number of days that persons w/ severe, persistant mental illness were kept in hospitals (discharging and making treatment decisions based off financial considerations - not best treatment practices or safety of the client or community).

NAMI (National Association for the Mentally Ill) is fighting to get the exclusion provision removed - so that those people who truly need to be hospitalized, long-term in institutions can be on the front end; instead of waiting until the person harms him/herself or others in the community for action to be taken.

The states' lack of providing adequate funding for mental health; failure to adequately prepare sufficient community-based services for the deinstitutionalization that occurred (and continues to occur) and the federal government's enactment of the IMD exclusionary provision are part of the reason why there has been a serious uptick in the amount of horrendous mass murders that have been committed by persons whose severe mental illness would have previously had them secured in an appropriate inpatient mental health hospital for the safety of the community and the person (IMD and deinstitutionalization also led to what we see now as a huge increase in the number of homeless persons w/ severe mental illness and our jails and prisons becoming the mental health "hospitals" of the 21st Century).

So, in addition to gun control - we need to ensure that MH treatment (including long-term institutionalization) occurs based on treatment need, safety and not on protecting the state or feds pocketbooks.

With whatever respect that is due, this is an absurd (I'd like to call it something else, but there's no need for it), unintelligent, and irrelevant argument.

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

I won't dignify some of the ridiculous remarks with a response, just to say that I concede some gun restrictions are needed, and that again most gun owners are responsible people. If someone breaks into your house, and is threatening your life, I am going to protect myself. Hopefully I would never have to do that. But people have the right to protect themselves if they are sane, law abiding citizens. People need to take personal responsibility for their own actions, what a novel concept! However I do concede that the assault weapons ban should be reinstated, I think that could be a common ground at some point. The key is making access to the most deadly types of assault weapons much more difficult for people with mental health problems. I think we need to think about MAJORLY revising mental health in this country, maybe in some way reviving the older systems of institutions for people with major issues. And limit violence in video games marketed to kids, and parents getting their heads out of cell phones and televisions long enough to get to know their kids! Just my opinion. I think we can all agree more needs to be done to keep this from happening again, just a matter of approach.

I recognize that people want to talk about mental health. I think that you can't solve the fact that there are insane people in cultures and you probably can never find a perfect mental health system, just always tweak the one you got and can both stomach and afford.

All of this mental health stuff seems to be both a smokescreen and not an effective way to stop these massacres. Make it impossible for private citizens to have assault weapons.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

All of this mental health stuff seems to be both a smokescreen and not an effective way to stop these massacres.

Well, of course it's a smokescreen. It comes from the same rightwing folks who never want their taxes raised, and want ever continual cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. It's like being anti-abortion but not wanting to pay for orphanages.

I think we need to think about MAJORLY revising mental health in this country, maybe in some way reviving the older systems of institutions for people with major issues.

And limit violence in video games marketed to kids,

and parents getting their heads out of cell phones and televisions long enough to get to know their kids!

I have a really serious problem with this demonizing of mental illness. It does nothing but create scapegoats for an entire (and very broad) group of people who are often the victims of violence themselves.

Lets quit eating what the chicken pecks and blaming the evil influences of rap/hip-hop and video games, the overwhelmed teachers, and whatever else and recognize that the problem is with guns.

I think I need me a cold pop myself. Ain't nobody got time for this rubbish.

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Absurd? What, it's okay for you to want to place bans on guns and not alcohol? Look up the satistics, the US has more DUI deaths than we do gun deaths.

Rod; The problem with this argument is that you are referencing absolute numbers of two unrelated events and calling it statistics. In order to be statistically correct, you need to equate (or normalize) the two events with each other. For example, you could establish a ratio of deaths per event (death and non-death included) for each situation and compare them. So it would have to be DUI deaths divided by all DUI (including non death) trips, compared to gun deaths divided by all (death and non-death) shootings.

For those 45 years and older, do you remember a long time ago when most states and counties had large state mental health hospitals? ...

So, in addition to gun control - we need to ensure that MH treatment (including long-term institutionalization) occurs based on treatment need, safety and not on protecting the state or feds pocketbooks.

Thanks for pointing this out and you are exactly right. Last year the Department of Justice found the State of NC in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act because they were not providing community services or appropriate treatment settings for people with chronic mental health problem. The mental health agencies were placing seriously mentally I'll people in adult care homes and there were several incidents of elderly people being assaulted. It isn't until people get hurt that change happens.

ps: I thought "Cold Pop" referred to some brand of popsicles or something

I haven't seen RC Cola in a while. The last time that I had one was in March during a trip to Colombia.

When I first moved down to Miami someone asked me if I wanted a pop. I looked at them with a puzzled face and they clarified "a soda pop". I thought it was too cute. Sounded so 1940s or something.

In the meantime I'm having a nice cup of eggnog from Farm Stores (known down here as "La Vaquita") with a heavy shot of rum. Delicious.

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

I can agree with those Americans who like their 2nd amendment and want to have a revolver, or hunting guns.

I doubt the US can rescind that right.

(But hey, we got abortion and I could imagine that being taken away.... Other rights do disappear over time. You don't have an unlimited right to free assembly. Smoking bans have taken away some freedom. etc. etc.)

I have been held up by gun point. After he got the valuables, he announced he would shoot me, but hen dropped his arm and walked away. It was horrific to say the least. I was on a murder trial once. They arrested this guy and over the course of the trial, it became clear there were many people at the scene of the crime (drug dealing) and they ALL had guns -- not to mention multiple names... I guess growing up in a non gun owning and non-hunting family, I never felt the need for a gun, despite my urban experiences above, and living in sketchy neighborhoods.

I might want a gun if I lived in rural isolation.

None of this has much to do with crackpots finding it pretty easy to have automatic weapons and arms stockpiles.

What is the situation now in American publics schooling? All schools have metal detectors and limited access in and out?

I can't imagine all schools having armed guards... Who would pay for that? And wouldn't they have to be genuinely sharp shooting highly trained armed guards to ever hope they could be effective?

And anyway, schools aside, how can ALL businesses ever hope to afford armed guards... ??

More guns everywhere and for everyone, how could this possibly be the solution?

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Lets quit eating what the chicken pecks and blaming the evil influences of rap/hip-hop and video games, the overwhelmed teachers, and whatever else and recognize that the problem is with guns.

Here here. I mean really, folks. Hip Hop? Video games? Heavy metal? Lack of locked psychiatric hospitals? Yeah its all deplorable. (Cept maybe the lack of locked psycho wards, as I'm a bit too shaken by American Horror Story and my vivid memories of visits to New York State mental hospitals in the 70s. Since closed, thank god.)

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

What is the situation now in American publics schooling? All schools have metal detectors and limited access in and out?

I went to pick up my 13yo a few weeks ago, The security consisted of...a sign at the front door saying all visitors must proceed directly to office to sign in. Doors wide open. From what I understand there is one Sheriffs Deputy asssigned to all the schools in my sons district, a small district not unlike Sandy hook.

The Sandy Hook School had a fairly progressive security system in...but it couldnt stop someone from shooting out the door.

Most districts have School Police, but they are delegated mainly to the high schools and their presence at lower grades are nearly non-existant. However even at the high schools polcie can be hard to find as there jsut arent enough of them.

I'm actually in shock after watching the President speak. You all really need to hear it.

I'm glad that I was recording a show at 8:30 and that the entire speech got recorded instead. It is a truly amazing and emotional delivery.

Logged

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

I recognize that people want to talk about mental health. I think that you can't solve the fact that there are insane people in cultures and you probably can never find a perfect mental health system, just always tweak the one you got and can both stomach and afford.

All of this mental health stuff seems to be both a smokescreen and not an effective way to stop these massacres. Make it impossible for private citizens to have assault weapons.

Improving mental health services is not necessarily going to prevent massacres but it always comes up when you have a tragedy like this one. Everyone wants to know why this happened and how it keep it from happening again but there are no easy answers. Mental health services tend to focus more on helping people deal with tragedies rather than preventing the tragedies. I could be wrong but don't think Adam Lanza even had a mental history.

"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Can anyone provide a link to the speech. Been trying to find one but haven't been able to so far.

Just FYI about something I have been using for a little while. The White House has an app for android and Apple. There is a LIVE section with alerts. You see the reporters getting ready for news conferences and they often stream all news conferences and presidential speeches, even those from around the world. Good app and a way to bypass the news networks cutting away.